Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 11:30
Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.
30. into the town ] Or, into the village; see on Joh 11:1. By remaining outside He would be able to say what He wished to say to the sisters without fear of interruption.
was in that place ] was still in that place.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 30. Jesus was not yet come into the town] As the Jewish burying places were without their cities and villages, it appears that the place where our Saviour was, when Martha met him, was not far from the place where Lazarus was buried. See Clarke on Lu 7:12.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Coming, she falls down at his feet, which was a posture (as we have heard before) very usual in those countries, by which they testified both their civil respects to princes and great persons, and also which they used in the worship of God, Mat 2:11. Whether Mary did it upon the one account or the other, depends upon what we cannot know; viz. whether she at this time was fully persuaded of his Divine nature; of which the best of the disciples, till Christs resurrection, had but a faint and uncertain persuasion. The words which she useth to him are the same which Martha used, See Poole on “Joh 11:21“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28-32. The Master is come andcalleth for theeThe narrative does not give us thisinteresting detail, but Martha’s words do.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now Jesus was not yet come into the town,…. Of Bethany, but stayed without, being nearer to Lazarus’s grave, which he intended to go to, in order to raise him to life, it being usual to bury the without the towns and cities; [See comments on Mt 8:28],
[See comments on Lu 7:12].
but was in that place where Martha met him; here he stopped, and here he continued: the Persic version reads, “but was sitting in the same place”, c. waiting for the coming of Mary along with Martha judging this to be a more suitable place to converse together in, than their own house, which was thronged with Jews; and especially he chose it for the reason above given.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Now Jesus was not yet come into the town ( ). Explanatory parenthesis with past perfect as in verse 19. Martha had her interview while he was still coming (verse 20) and left him (went off, , verse 28) to hurry to Mary with the news. Why Jesus tarried still where he had met Martha we do not know. Westcott says, “as though He would meet the sisters away from the crowd of mourners.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Now Jesus was not yet come into the town,” (houpo de eleluthei ho lesous eis ten komen) “However Jesus had not yet come into the village,” of Bethany, inside the village, but had delayed outside and nearby. He forces Himself on no one in an hour of trial, but comes near enough to call the weary and needy one, offering His help, but forcing Himself on no one in salvation or service.
2) ”But was in that place where Martha met him.” (all’ hen eit en topo hopou hupentesen auto he Martha) ”But he was yet in the place near the burial-place, where Martha (had) met him,” just outside Bethany, perhaps with the disciples who had journeyed with Him from where He had been laboring in Bethabara (Bethany) of Perea, beyond Jordan, Joh 1:28; Joh 10:40-42; Joh 11:3; Joh 11:6-7; Joh 11:20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(30) Now Jesus was not yet come into the town.Better, as before, into the village (Joh. 11:1).
Where Martha met him.Comp. Joh. 11:20.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 11:30-31 . He had remained outside the place , not, however, because of the proximity of the grave (He did not even know where it was, Joh 11:34 , against Hengstenberg and others), but doubtless because Martha had informed Him of the presence of the many , which it was so natural for Martha to do, that Luthardt should not have called it in question. He did not desire their presence whilst He said to Mary what He intended to say, for which reason also He had her called secretly . His intention, however, was not realized, for the Jews thought that when Mary went away so hastily she had gone to the grave (on this custom see Geier, de Luctu Hebr . VII. 26, and Wetstein), and followed after her, in order not to leave her alone in her sorrow without words of sympathy and consolation. On . . comp. Joh 11:38 ; Joh 20:1 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.
Ver. 30. Was not yet come into the town ] To eat and refresh himself after his long journey; he would do his work first, as Abraham’s servant, Gen 24:33 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
John
THE OPEN GRAVE AT BETHANY
Joh 11:30 – Joh 11:45
Why did Jesus stay outside Bethany and summon Martha and Mary to come to Him? Apparently that He might keep Himself apart from the noisy crowd of conventional mourners whose presence affronted the majesty and sanctity of sorrow, and that He might speak to the hearts of the two real mourners. A divine decorum forbade Him to go to the house. The Life-bringer keeps apart. His comforts are spoken in solitude. He reverenced grief. How beautifully His sympathetic delicacy contrasts with the heartless rush of those who ‘were comforting’ Mary when they thought that she was driven to go suddenly to the grave by a fresh burst of sorrow! If they had had any real sympathy or perception, they would have stayed where they were, and let the poor burdened heart find ease in lonely weeping. But, like all vulgar souls, they had one idea-never to leave mourners alone or let them weep.
Three stages seem discernible in the self-revelation of Jesus in this crowning miracle: His agitation and tears, His majestic confidence in His life-giving power now to be manifested, and His actual exercise of that power.
I. The repetition by Mary of Martha’s words, as her first salutation, tells a pathetic story of the one thought that had filled both sisters’ hearts in these four dreary days.
We note that Mary has no such hope as Martha had expressed. Her more passive, meditative disposition had bowed itself, and let the grief overwhelm her. So in her we see a specimen of the excess of sorrow which indulges in the monotonous repetition of what would have happened if something else that did not happen had happened, and which is too deeply dark to let a gleam of hope shine in. Words will do little to comfort such grief. Silent sharing of its weeping and helpful deeds will do most.
So a great wave of emotion swept across the usually calm soul of Jesus, which John bids us trace to its cause by ‘therefore’ Joh 11:33. The sight of Mary’s real, and the mourners’ half-real, tears, and the sound of their loud ‘keening,’ shook His spirit, and He yielded to, and even encouraged, the rush of feeling ‘troubled Himself’ . But not only sympathy and sorrow ruffled the clear mirror of His spirit; another disturbing element was present. He ‘was moved with indignation’ Rev. Ver. marg.. Anger at Providence often mingles with our grief, but that was not Christ’s indignation. The only worthy explanation of that strange ingredient in Christ’s agitation is that it was directed against the source of death,-namely, sin. He saw the cause manifested in the effects. He wept for the one, He was wroth at the other. The tears witnessed to the perfect love of the man, and of the God revealed in the man; the indignation witnessed to the recoil and aversion from sin of the perfectly righteous Man, and of the holy God manifested in Him. We get one glimpse into His heart, as on to some ocean heaving and mist-covered. The momentary sight proclaims the union in Him, as the Incarnate Word, of pity for our woes and of aversion from our sins.
His question as to the place of the tomb is not what we should have expected; but its very abruptness indicates effort to suppress emotion, and resolve to lose no time in redressing the grief. Most sweetly human are the tears that start afresh after the moment’s repression, as the little company begin to move towards the grave. And most sadly human are the unsympathetic criticisms of His sacred sorrow. Even the best affected of the bystanders are cool enough to note them as tokens of His love, at which perhaps there is a trace of wonder; while others snarl out a sarcasm which is double-barrelled, as casting doubt on the reality either of the love or of the power. ‘It is easy to weep, but if He had cared for him, and could work miracles, He might surely have kept him alive.’ How blind men are! ‘Jesus wept,’ and all that the lookers-on felt was astonishment that He should have cared so much for a dead man of no importance, or carping doubt as to the genuineness of His grief and the reality of His power. He shows us His pity and sorrow still-to no more effect with many.
II. The passage to the tomb was marked by his continued agitation.
He points to the stone, which, probably like that of many a grave discovered in Palestine, rolled in a groove cut in the rocky floor in front of the tomb. The command accords with His continual habit of confining the miraculous within the narrowest limits. He will do nothing by miracle which can be done without it. Lazarus could have heard and emerged, though the stone had remained. If the story had been a myth, he very likely would have done so. Like ‘loose him, and let him go,’ this is a little touch that cannot have been invented, and helps to confirm the simple, historical character of the account.
Not less natural, though certainly as unlikely to have been told unless it had happened, is Martha’s interruption. She must have heard what was going on, and, with her usual activity, have joined the procession, though we left her in the house. She thinks that Jesus is going into the grave; and a certain reverence for the poor remains, as well as for Him, makes her shrink from the thought of even His loving eyes seeing them now. Clearly she has forgotten the dim hopes which had begun in her when she talked with Jesus. Therefore He gently reminds her of these; for His words Joh 11:40 can scarcely refer to anything but that interview, though the precise form of expression now used is not found in the report of it Joh 11:25 – Joh 11:27.
We mark Christ’s calm confidence in His own power. His identification of its effect with the outflashing of the glory of God, and His encouragement to her to exercise faith by suspending her sight of that glory upon her faith. Does that mean that He would not raise her brother unless she believed? No; for He had determined to ‘awake him out of sleep’ before He left Peraea. But Martha’s faith was the condition of her seeing the glory of God in the miracle. We may see a thousand emanations of that glory, and see none of it. We shall see it if we exercise faith. In the natural world, ‘seeing is believing’; in the spiritual, believing is seeing.
Equally remarkable, as breathing serenest confidence, is the wonderful filial prayer. Our Lord speaks as if the miracle were already accomplished, so sure is He: ‘Thou heardest Me.’ Does this thanksgiving bring Him down to the level of other servants of God who have wrought miracles by divine power granted them? Certainly not; for it is in full accord with the teaching of all this Gospel, according to which ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself,’ but yet, whatsoever things the Father doeth, ‘these also doeth the Son likewise.’ Both sides of the truth must be kept in view. The Son is not independent of the Father, but the Son is so constantly and perfectly one with the Father that He is conscious of unbroken communion, of continual wielding of the whole divine power.
But the practical purpose of the thanksgiving is to be specially noted. It suspends His whole claims on the single issue about to be decided. It summons the people to mark the event. Never before had He thus heralded a miracle. Never had He deigned to say thus solemnly, ‘If God does not work through Me now, reject Me as an impostor; if He does, yield to Me as Messiah.’ The moment stands alone in His life. What a scene! There is the open tomb, with its dead occupant; there are the eager, sceptical crowd, the sisters pausing in their weeping to gaze, with some strange hopes beginning to creep into their hearts, the silent disciples, and, in front of them all, Jesus, with the radiance of power in the eyes that had just been swimming in tears, and a new elevation in His tones. How all would be hushed in expectance of the next moment’s act!
III. The miracle itself is told in the fewest words. What more was there to tell?
Lazarus was far away from that rock cave. But, wherever he was, he could hear, and he must obey. So, with graveclothes entangling his feet, and a napkin about his livid face, he came stumbling out into the light that dazed his eyes, closed for four dark days, and stood silent and motionless in that awestruck crowd. One Person there was not awestruck. Christ’s calm voice, that had just reverberated through the regions of the dead, spoke the simple command, ‘Loose him, and let him go.’ To Him it was no wonder that He should give back a life. For the Christ who wept is the Christ whose voice all that are in the graves shall hear, and shall come forth.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 11:30-37
30Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met Him. 31Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and consoling her, when they saw that Mary got up quickly and went out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, 34and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.” 35Jesus wept. 36So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!” 37But some of them said, “Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?”
Joh 11:30 This is another eyewitness detail of the Apostolic author.
Joh 11:33
NASB”He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled”
NKJV”He groaned in the spirit and was troubled”
NRSV”He was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved”
TEV”His heart was touched, and he was deeply moved”
NJB”Jesus was greatly distressed, and with a profound sigh”
This is literally “snorted in the spirit.” This idiom was usually used of anger (cf. Dan 11:30 [LXX]; Mar 1:43; Mar 14:5). But in this context a translation showing deep emotion is to be preferred (cf. Joh 11:38). Although some commentators see this strong emotion, possibly anger, directed at death, Jesus had truly human emotions (cf. Joh 11:33; Joh 11:35-36; Joh 11:38) and shows them here for his friends.
Joh 11:35 “Jesus wept” This is the shortest verse in the Bible. Death was not God’s will for this planet. It is the result of human rebellion. Jesus feels the pain of the loss of a loved one. He feels for the life experiences of all His followers!
The weeping of Jesus was a quiet, personal kind, not the public wailing mentioned in Joh 11:33.
Joh 11:37 This question expects a “yes” answer. This was Martha’s opinion in Joh 11:21 and Mary’s in Joh 11:32.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Joh 11:30. , not yet) Jesus did all things with the exact amount of delay required.-) is the reading of the Copt. [= Memphitic] and Lat. versions; also Augustin. Cant. The reading of the Lat. codex Reutlingensis, which has neither autem nor enim, is a middle one between the two.[301]
[301] AB and Rec. Text read . Dabc Vulg. read : and D, for .-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 11:30
Joh 11:30
(Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met him).-Jesus had come from beyond Jordan, where John at first did baptize. (Joh 10:39-40). He heard of the sickness of Lazarus at Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem, and had now come to the place, but was yet without the town where Martha had met him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Joh 11:20
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Jesus was not far from the town, but tarried until Martha could return with her sister.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Not many passages in the New Testament are more wonderful than the simple narrative contained in these eight verses. It brings out, in a most beautiful light, the sympathizing character of our Lord Jesus Christ. It shows us Him who is “able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by Him,” (Heb 7:25,) as able to feel as He is to save. It shows us Him who is One with the Father, and the Maker of all things, entering into human sorrows, and shedding human tears.
We learn, for one thing, in these verses, how great a blessing God sometimes bestows on actions of kindness and sympathy.
It seems that the house of Martha and Mary at Bethany was filled with mourners when Jesus arrived. Many of these mourners, no doubt, knew nothing of the inner life of these holy women. Their faith, their hope, their love to Christ, their discipleship, were things of which they were wholly ignorant. But they felt for them in their heavy bereavement, and kindly came to offer what comfort they could. By so doing they reaped a rich and unexpected reward. They beheld the greatest miracle that Jesus ever wrought. They were eye-witnesses when Lazarus came forth from the tomb. To many of them, we may well believe, that day was a spiritual birth. The raising of Lazarus led to a resurrection in their souls. How small sometimes are the hinges on which eternal life appears to depend! If these people had not sympathized they might never have been saved.
We need not doubt that these things were written for our learning. To show sympathy and kindness to the sorrowful is good for our own souls, whether we know it or not. To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, to weep with them that weep, to try to bear one another’s burdens, and lighten one another’s cares,-all this will make no atonement for sin, and will not take us to heaven. Yet it is healthy employment for our hearts, and employment which none ought to despise. Few perhaps are aware that one secret of being miserable is to live only for ourselves, and one secret of being happy is to try to make others happy, and to do a little good in the world. It is not for nothing that these words were written by Solomon, “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting:”-“The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.” (Ecc 7:2, Ecc 7:4.) The saying of our Lord is too much overlooked: “Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” (Mat 10:42.) The friends of Martha and Mary found that promise wonderfully verified. In an age of peculiar selfishness and self-indulgence, it would be well if they had more imitators.
We learn, for another thing, what a depth of tender sympathy there is in Christ’s heart towards His people. We read that when our Lord saw Mary weeping, and the Jews also weeping with her, “He groaned in the spirit and was troubled.” We read even more than this. He gave outward expression to His feelings: He “wept.” He knew perfectly well that the sorrow of the family of Bethany would soon be turned into joy, and that Lazarus in a few minutes would be restored to his sisters. But though he knew all this, he “wept.”
This weeping of Christ is deeply instructive. It shows us that it is not sinful to sorrow. Weeping and mourning are sadly trying to flesh and blood, and make us feel the weakness of our mortal nature. But they are not in themselves wrong. Even the Son of God wept.-It shows us that deep feeling is not a thing of which we need be ashamed. To be cold and stoical and unmoved in the sight of sorrow is no sign of grace. There is nothing unworthy of a child of God in tears. Even the Son of God could weep.-It shows us, above all, that the Savior in whom believers trust is a most tender and feeling Savior. He is one who can be touched with sympathy for our infirmities. When we turn to Him in the hour of trouble, and pour out our hearts before Him, He knows what we go through, and can pity. And He is One who never changes. Though He now sits at God’s right hand in heaven, His heart is still the same that it was upon earth. We have an Advocate with the Father, who, when He was upon earth, could weep.
Let us remember these things in daily life, and never be ashamed of walking in our Master’s footsteps. Let us strive to be men and women of a tender heart and a sympathizing spirit. Let us never be ashamed to weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that rejoice. (Rom 12:15.) Well would it be for the Church and the world if there were more Christians of this stamp and character! The Church would be far more beautiful, and the world be far more happy.
==================
Notes-
v30.-[Now Jesus was not yet come, etc.] The Greek word for “come” is in the preterperfect tense. The sentence, translated literally, would be, “Jesus had not yet come into the town” when Martha left Him to tell Mary, but was still waiting or remaining in the place outside Bethany, where Martha at first met Him. The word “town” would be more correctly rendered “village,” according to our present acceptation of the word. Yet it is fair to remember that words change their meaning with lapse of time. Even at this day a little Suffolk village of 1,400 people, is called a “town” by many of its inhabitants.
Calvin thinks that Jesus remained outside Bethany by Martha’s request, that His life might not be endangered.
v31.-[The Jews then…comforted her…saw Mary…followed her.] It is probable that the persons here mentioned formed a considerable number,-as many as could crowd into the house. “Comforted” in the Greek is the present participle, and implies that they were actually employed in comforting Mary. Concerning the manner of comforting on such occasions, we know nothing certain. People who only talk common places are miserable comforters, and far worse than Job’s friends, who sat for seven days saying nothing at all. It may be that among the Jews the mere presence of courteous and sympathizing people was thought a kind attention, and soothed the feelings of the bereaved. The customs of nations differ widely in such matters.
It is evident these Jews did not hear Martha’s message, and knew nothing of Jesus being near. Some of them perhaps, had they known it, would not have followed Mary; not knowing, they all followed without exception, and unexpectedly became eyewitnesses of a stupendous miracle. All they knew was that Mary went out hastily. They followed in a spirit of kind sympathy, and by so doing reaped a great blessing.
Rupertus shrewdly remarks that the Jews did not follow Martha, when she ran to meet Jesus, but did follow Mary. He conjectures that Mary’s affliction was deeper and more overwhelming than Martha’s, and her friends devoted themselves more to comfort her, as needing most consolation. Yet the simpler reason seems to be that when both sisters had left the house, the friends could hardly do anything else but go out and follow.
[She goeth…grave…weep there.] We must suppose from this sentence, that weeping at the grave of dead friends was a custom among the Jews in our Lord’s time. In estimating such a custom, which to most thinking persons may seem as useless as rubbing a wound, and very likely to keep up pain without healing, it is only fair to remember that Old Testament views of the state after death were not nearly so well lighted and comfortable as ours. The removal of death’s sting, and the resurrection and paradise, were things not nearly so well understood even by the best saints before Christ, as they were after Christ rose again. To most of the Jews in our Lord’s time, we can well believe that death was regarded as the end of all happiness and comfort, and the state after death as a dreary blank. When Sadducees, who said there was “no resurrection,” were chief rulers and high priests, we may well suppose that the sorrow of many Jews over the death of friends, was a “sorrow without hope.” Even at this day, “the place of wailing” at Jerusalem, where the Jews assemble to weep over the foundation stones of the old temple, is a proof that their habit of weeping over crushed hopes is not yet extinct.
v32.-[Then when Mary, etc.] We see in this verse that as soon as Mary met our Lord, the first thing she said was almost exactly what Martha had said in the twenty-first verse, and the remarks made there need not be repeated. The similarity shows, at any rate, that throughout the illness of Lazarus, the thoughts of the two sisters had been running in one and the same direction. Both had built all their hopes on Jesus coming. Both had felt confidence that His coming would have saved their brother’s life. Both were bitterly disappointed that He did not come. Both had probably kept saying the same words repeatedly, “If our Master would only come, Lazarus would not die.” There are, however, one or two touches of difference between the two sisters, here as elsewhere. Let us note them.
Mary “fell down” at our Lord’s feet, and Martha did not. She was made of softer, feebler character than Martha, and was more completely crushed and overcome than her sister.
Mary fell down at our Lord’s feet when she “saw” Him. Up to that moment probably she had borne up, and had run to the place where Martha told her Jesus was waiting. But when she actually saw her Master, and remembered how she had longed for a sight of Him for some days, her feelings overcame her, and she broke down. The eyes have a great effect on the feelings of the heart. People often bear up pretty well, till they see something that calls up thoughts.
I do not perceive any ground for thinking, as Calvin does, that this “falling at our Lord’s feet” was an act of worship, a recognition of our Lord’s divinity. It is much more natural and reasonable to regard it as the mere expression of Mary’s state of feeling.
Trapp remarks that the words of Mary in this verse and of Martha in the former one, show that we are all naturally disposed to make too much of Christ’s bodily presence.
v33.-[When Jesus therefore saw her, etc.] This is one of those verses which bring out very strongly the real humanity of our Lord, and His power to sympathize with His people. As a real man, He was specially moved when He saw Mary and the Jews weeping. As God, He had no need to hear their plaintive language, and to see their tears in order to learn that they were afflicted. He knew perfectly all their feelings. Yet as man He was like ourselves, peculiarly stirred by the sight of sorrow: for human nature is so constituted, that grief is eminently contagious. If one in a company is deeply touched, and begins to weep, it is extremely likely that others will weep also. This power of sympathy our Lord evidently had in full possession. He saw weeping, and He wept.
Let us carefully remark that our Lord never changes. He did not leave behind Him His human nature when He ascended up into heaven. At this moment, at God’s right hand, He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and can understand tears as well as ever. Our great High Priest is the very Friend that our souls need, able to save as God, able to feel as man. To talk of Mary feeling for sinners more than Jesus, is to say that which is ignorant and blasphemous. To teach that we can need any other priest, when Jesus is such a feeling Savior, is to teach what is senseless and absurd.
[He groaned in spirit.] There is considerable difficulty about this expression. The word rendered “groaned,” is only used five times in the New Testament. In Mat 9:30, and Mar 1:43, it is “straitly charged.” In Mar 14:5, it is “murmured.” Here, and at Joh 11:38, it is “groaned.” Now what is precisely meant by the phrase?
(a) Some, as Ecolampadius, Brentius, Chemnitius, Flacius, and Ferus, maintain firmly that the notion of anger, indignation, and stern rebuke, is inseparable from the word “groaned.” They think that the latent idea is the deep and holy indignation with which our Lord was moved at the sight of the ravages which death had made, and the misery sin and the devil had brought into the world. They say it implies the stern and righteous wrath with which the deliverer of a country tyrannized over and trampled down by a rebel, regards the desolation and destruction which the rebel has caused.
(b) Some add to this view the idea that “in spirit” means that our Lord groaned through the Holy Ghost, or by the Divine Spirit which dwelt in Him without measure, or by the power of His Godhead.
(c) Some, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius, think “groaned in spirit” means that Christ rebuked His own natural feelings by His Divine nature, or restrained His trouble, and in so doing was greatly disturbed.
(d) Some, as Gomarus and Lampe, consider that our Lord was moved to holy sorrow and indignation at the sight of the unbelief even of Martha and Mary (expressed by their immoderate grief, as if the case of Lazarus was hopeless), as well as at the sight of the unbelief of the Jews.
(e) Some, as Bullinger, Gualter, Diodati, Grotius, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Rollock, and Hutcheson, consider that the phrase simply expresses the highest and deepest kind of inward agitation of mind, an agitation in which grief, compassion, and holy detestation of sin’s work in the world, were all mingled and combined. This agitation, however, was entirely inward at present: it was not bodily, but spiritual; not in the flesh, but in the spirit. As Burgon says, the “spirit” here means Christ’s inward soul. I prefer this opinion to the former ones, though I fully admit it has difficulties. But it is allowed by Schleusner and Parkhurst, and seems the view of Tyndall, Cranmer, and the Geneva version, as well as of our own.
[And was troubled.] This expression is to my mind even more difficult than the one which immediately precedes it. It would be literally translated, as our marginal reading has it, “He troubled Himself.” In fact, Wycliffe translates it so. Now what can this mean?
Some maintain that in our Lord’s mysterious Person the human nature was so entirely subordinated to the Divine, that the human passions and affections never moved unless influenced and actuated by the Divine nature, and that here to show His sympathy, He “troubled Himself.” Thus Rupertus remarks that “if He had not troubled Himself, no one else could have troubled Him.” I confess that I regard this view with a little suspicion. It seems to me to imply that our Lord’s human nature was not like ours, and that His humanity was like an instrument played upon by His divinity, but in itself dead and passive until its music was called out. To my mind there is something dangerous in this.
I prefer to think that our Lord as man had all the feelings, passions, and affections of a man, but all under such perfect control that they never exceeded as ours do, and were never even very demonstrative, excepting on great occasions. As Beza says, there was no “disorder” in His emotions. Here I think He saw an occasion for exhibiting a very deep degree of sorrow and sympathy, partly from the sorrowful sight He beheld, and partly from His love to Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Therefore, He greatly disturbed and “troubled Himself.”
It still admits of a question whether the phrase may not be simply a Hebraism for “He was troubled.” (Compare 1Sa 30:6, and 2Sa 12:18.) Hammond says it is a Hebrew idiom.
When all has been said, we must not forget that the phrase touches a very delicate and mysterious subject: that subject is the precise nature of the union of two natures in our Lord’s Person. That He was at the same time perfect God and perfect Man, is an article of the Christian faith; but how far the Divine nature acted on the human, and to what extent it checked and influenced the action of human passions and feelings, are very deep points, which we have no line completely to fathom. After all, not the least part of our difficulty is that we can form no clear and adequate conception of a human nature entirely without sin.
One thing, at any rate, is abundantly clear from this passage: there is nothing wrong or wicked in being greatly moved by the sight of sorrow, so long as we keep our feelings under control. To be always cold, unfeeling, and unsympathizing, may appear to some very dignified and philosophical. But though it may suit a Stoic, it is not consistent with the character of a Christian. Sympathy is not sinful, but Christ-like.
Theophylact observes that Christ “teaches us by His own example the due measure of joy and grief. The absence altogether of sympathy and sorrow is brutal: the excess of them is womanly.”
Melancthon observes that none of Christ’s miracles seem to have been done without some great mental emotion. (Luk 8:46.) He supposes that here at this verse, there was a great conflict with Satan in our Lord’s mind, and that He wrestled in prayer for the raising of Lazarus, and then thanked God afterwards that the prayer was heard. Calvin takes much the same view.
Ecolampadius observes that we must not think Christ had a human body only, and not a human soul. He had a soul like our own in all things, sin only excepted, and capable of all our feelings and emotions.
Piscator and Trapp compare the trouble of spirit which our Lord went through, to the disturbance and agitation of perfectly clear water in a perfectly clear glass vessel. However great the agitation, the water remains clear.
Musculus reverently remarks that after all there is something about this “groaning in spirit and troubling Himself,” which cannot be fully explained.
v34.-[And said, Where have ye laid him?] We cannot suppose that our Lord, who knew all things, even to the moment of Lazarus’ death, could really need to be informed where Lazarus was buried. He asks what He does here partly as a kind friend to show His deep sympathy and interest in the grave of His friend, and partly to give further proof that there was no collusion in the matter of Lazarus’ burial, and that He had nothing to do with the choice of his tomb, in order to concert an imposture about raising him. In short, those who heard Him publicly ask this question, would see that this was no pre-arranged and pre-contrived miracle.
Quesnel remarks, “Christ does not ask out of ignorance, any more than God did when He said, “Adam, where art thou?”
[They said…Lord, come and see.] Who they were that said this, we do not exactly know. It was probably the common saying of all the party of mourners who stood around while Jesus talked with Mary. They did not know why our Lord wished to see the grave. They may possibly have supposed that He wished to accompany Mary and Martha, and to weep at the grave. At any rate the question and answer secured a large attendance of companions, as the disciples and our Lord went to the place where Lazarus was buried.
v35.-[Jesus wept.] This wonderful little verse has given rise to an enormous amount of comment. The difficulty is to select thoughts, and not to overload the subject.
The Greek word rendered “wept” is not the same as that used for “weeping” in Joh 11:33, but totally different. There the weeping is a weeping accompanied by demonstrative lamentation. Here the word would be more literally and accurately rendered “shed tears.” In fact it is the only place in the New Testament where this word for “weep” is used.
There are three occasions where our Lord is recorded to have wept, in the Gospels: once when He beheld the city (Luk 19:41), once in the garden of Gethsemane (Mat 26:39, and Heb 6:7), and here. We never read of His laughing, and only once of His rejoicing. (Luk 10:21.)
The reasons assigned by commentators why our Lord wept here, before He raised Lazarus, are various and curious.
(a) Some think that He wept to see the ravages made by death and sin.
(b) Some, as Hilary, think that He wept to think of the unbelief of the Jews.
(c) Some think that He wept to see how weak and feeble was the faith of Mary and Martha.
(d) Some, as Jerome and Ferus, think that He wept at the thought of the sorrow Lazarus would go through by returning to a sinful world.
(e) Some think that He wept out of sympathy with the affliction of His friends at Bethany, in order to give an eternal proof to His church that He can feel with us and for us.
I believe this last opinion is the true one.
We learn the great practical lesson from this verse, that there is nothing unworthy of a Christian in tears. There is nothing unmanly, dishonorable, unwise, or feeble, in being full of sympathy with the afflicted, and ready to weep with them that weep. Indeed, it is curious to gather up the many instances we have in Scripture of great men weeping.
We may draw great comfort from the thought that the Savior in whom we are bid to trust is one who can weep, and is as able to feel as He is able to save.
We may learn the reality of our Lord’s humanity very strongly from this little verse. He was one who could hunger, thirst, sleep, eat, drink, speak, walk, groan, be wearied, wonder, feel indignant, rejoice, like any of ourselves, and yet without sin; and above all, He could weep. I read that there is “joy in the presence of the angels of God” (Luk 15:10), but I never read of angels weeping. Tears are peculiar to flesh and blood.
Chrysostom remarks that “John, who enters into higher statements about our Lord’s nature than any of the evangelists, also descends lower than any in describing His bodily affections.”
v36.-[Then said…Jews…Behold…loved him.] This sentence is the expression partly of surprise, which comes out in the word “behold;” and partly of admiration,-What a loving and tender-hearted Teacher this is! It gives the idea that those who said this were the few unprejudiced Jews who had come to Bethany to comfort Mary and Martha, and afterward believed when they saw Lazarus raised.
Let us observe that of all graces, love is the one which most arrests the attention and influences the opinion of the world.
v37.-[And some of them said, etc.] This sentence sounds to me like the language of enemies determined to believe nothing good of our Lord, and prepared to pick a hole or find a fault if possible, in anything that He did. Does not a sarcastic sneer ring throughout it? “Could not this Man, if He really did open the eyes of that blind person at Jerusalem last autumn, have prevented this friend of His from dying? If He really is the Messiah and the Christ, and really does work such wonderful works, why has He not prevented all this sorrow? If He really loved Lazarus and his sisters, why did He not prove His love by keeping him back from the grave? Is it not plain that He is not Almighty? He cannot do everything. He could open the eyes of a blind man, but He could not prevent death carrying off His friend. If He was able to prevent Lazarus dying, why did He not do it? If He was not able, it is clear there are some things He cannot do.”
We should note that “the blind” is a word in the singular number. It is evidently the blind man at Jerusalem whose case is referred to.
Let us note that nothing will convince, satisfy, or silence some wicked men. Even when Christ is before them, they are caviling, and doubting, and finding fault. What right have Christ’s ministers to be surprised if they meet with the same treatment.
Musculus remarks on the Satanic malice which this sentence displays. It is the old skeptical spirit of caviling and questioning. Unbelief is always saying, Why, and why, and why? “If this Man was such a friend of Lazarus, and loved him so much, why did He let him die?”
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Joh 11:30. Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still in that place where Martha met him. Avoiding the presence of the Jews, so painful and incongruous at such a time. This verse is purely parenthetical.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The revelation of Jesus’ compassion 11:30-37
The emphasis in this pericope is on Jesus’ compassion in the face of sin’s consequences.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Mary’s physical response to Jesus was more emotional than Martha’s had been, perhaps reflecting her temperament. Again we find Mary at Jesus’ feet (cf. Luk 10:39). Her words were identical to Martha’s (Joh 11:21). She met Jesus in a public place whereas Martha had talked with Him privately. This probably accounts in part for Jesus’ different responses to the two women.
"Mary is found three times in the Gospel record, and each time she is at the feet of Jesus (Luk 10:39; Joh 11:32; Joh 12:3). She sat at His feet and listened to His word; she fell at His feet and poured out her sorrow; and she came to His feet to given Him her praise and worship. Mary’s only recorded words in the Gospels are given in Joh 11:32, and they echo what Martha had already said (Joh 11:21)." [Note: Ibid.]